iMessage, other Apple technologies targeted in ITC investigation.

The International Trade Commission voted yesterday to investigate Apple for patent infringement allegations launched by the Google-owned Motorola Mobility. As expected, Motorola is asking for import bans on just about every iOS device, including iPhones, iPods, and iPads. What might be surprising is that Motorola is also asking for a ban on every type of Mac OS X computer, claiming Apple's iMessage technology infringes a Motorola patent.

On the whole, Motorola names seven patents, all of which are allegedly infringed upon by some or all of these iOS devices: the iPod Touch, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and all three generations of the iPad. Presumably, the iPhone 5 would have been included had the complaint been filed a bit later.

In an exhibit attached to the complaint (PDF), Motorola explains that Apple's iMessage client for iOS and Mac OS X violates a claim in that patent covering "A plurality of messaging clients within a messaging communication system for providing continuity between the plurality of messaging clients comprising: a first messaging client, for establishing a first communication connection including a plurality of client data with a message server; and a second messaging client for receiving the plurality of client data from the first messaging client and for establishing a second communication connection including the plurality of client data with the message server."

Motorola focuses on how iMessage provides a common messaging client between iOS and Mac OS X devices, with users being able to "start a messaging conversation on an OS X Mountain Lion device such as a MacBook Air, and continue the conversation on another device running the 'iMessage' messaging client on iOS 5 software, such as an iPhone 4S."

Using the MacBook Air as a representative product for all Mac OS X devices, Motorola notes that iMessage on the MacBook Air "establishes a first communication connection via WiFi or LAN or otherwise resulting in the exchange of data (text, photos or videos) with Apple's message server." Further, Motorola states that "the iMessage messaging client on the iPhone 4S can establish a second communication (e.g. The new iPad or MacBook Air being the first communication connection) via WiFi or 3G that results in the receipt of data from Apple's message server."

Motorola's complaint was filed in mid-August and made public this week with the ITC announcement that it will open an investigation into "certain Apple iPhones, iPods, iPads, and Apple personal computers." The ITC "has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case," the commission said.

Motorola asks for a "permanent exclusion order directed to products manufactured by Respondent... excluding entry into the United States of wireless communications devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims" of the seven named patents. Motorola also seeks a cease and desist order preventing any advertisement, distribution, or sale of iOS and Mac products imported into the US.

In addition to alleging infringement, Motorola says banning all Macs and most iOS devices won't have much impact on US consumers. "With so many participants in the highly competitive Wireless communication, portable music, and computer market, it is unlikely that consumers would experience much of an impact if the requested exclusion orders were obtained," Motorola wrote. "Even if the exclusion order caused an increase in the price of wireless communications devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof—an unlikely event—a price increase alone is insufficient to warrant preclusion of a remedial order."

While Motorola has typically used standards-essential patents in its lawsuits, the patents at issue in this one aren't tied to any industry standards.

Apple and Motorola have been flinging patent lawsuits at each other all over the globe, but almost entirely focusing on smartphones and tablets. With Apple having won a huge victory against Android vendor Samsung, Google is going on the offensive with its newly acquired subsidiary, Motorola. It seems unlikely that Motorola would be able to get an import ban on nearly all iOS devices and all Mac computers, but it's nothing if not a bold and interesting move.

We've asked Apple for comment on the lawsuit and will provide an update if we get one.

Wouldn't that apply to most IM clients nowadays?Facebook, Microsoft, even the alternative software I use, Trillian, can do that. I hope they don't realize that!

None of those clients are truly synchronized, however. Those services/protocols that support multiple client logins, such as AIM and Jabber, basically behave independently. When a message is sent to you, it's effectively a broadcast to that user name, the server sees the target name, and passes it to all clients logged in on that name. Similarly, when you respond, it broadcasts a message to the intended recipient. The catch here is that only the client that sent the message will usually have the sent message in its log (in the case of facebook, the web-based client will always have it, but any third-party clients will only have the sent messages if they're sent FROM them).

The other issue which I also mentioned earlier in the thread is that many clients (I notice this especially with Google's Jabber implementation in GoogleTalk), once you're active on them, will cause the other clients to stop receiving the messages in the conversation. So while all clients are reporting as idle to the server, they all receive all messages, but once you go active in one (say, responding to a message) that client seems to "steal" the conversation, and all future messages are only received by that client.

The patent and iMessage appear to be truly synchronous. All clients always receive all messages and all clients are updated with messages sent from any other client, so they all always show the complete conversation. Doing this successfully would set it apart from 99% of chat software and protocols available today, never mind a decade ago.

The reason people make a big deal about rounded rectangles is that it's exactly what the patent is for. It's absolutely absurd.

You realize, of course, that's EXACTLY NOT what won the lawsuit against Samsung, right?

Didn't say it was, but the post in question made no reference to ANY case, let alone specific ones. It merely mocked the refrain of "rounded rectangle" and variations on it, as if it weren't justified. The fact of the matter is that it IS justified, because that's exactly what that design patent is for: a wholely generic and completely non-distinctive rectangle with rounded corners.

Meanwhile constantly repeating "Do no Evil" sarcastically is largely meaningless. Define evil, show where google defines evil, and show where Google is bullying an entire market over ridiculous patents before this COUNTERSTRIKE. It's not hard to see that while you may not always like Google or what they do, they've never really done anything truly detrimental to their customers or their users (these are usually two different groups, by the way), let alone the industry as a whole. The same cannot be said for the few they've taken an offensive stance with.

Actually I was mocking the fact that all the Apple fanboys use "don't be evil" whenever Google does anything borderline questionable, and Android fanboys (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I've been accused of being) like to use "rectangle with rounded corners" as the ultimate anti-Apple chant.

I was pointing out that they're both stupid.

Yes, Apple's design patent is pretty dumb, and is not the only patent I find they should not have been given, but repeatedly saying "rectangle with rounded corners" is equally inane.

Yes, Google's motto is "don't be evil", but how someone can use that in this case, where Googarola is seeking to ban Apple products, largely in retaliation for Apple lawsuits, to say Google is being evil is just as inane.

Half the first page was fanboy chatter, and both sides are dumb. I was just pointing it out.

The reason people make a big deal about rounded rectangles is that it's exactly what the patent is for. It's absolutely absurd.

You realize, of course, that's EXACTLY NOT what won the lawsuit against Samsung, right?

Didn't say it was, but the post in question made no reference to ANY case, let alone specific ones. It merely mocked the refrain of "rounded rectangle" and variations on it, as if it weren't justified. The fact of the matter is that it IS justified, because that's exactly what that design patent is for: a wholely generic and completely non-distinctive rectangle with rounded corners.

Meanwhile constantly repeating "Do no Evil" sarcastically is largely meaningless. Define evil, show where google defines evil, and show where Google is bullying an entire market over ridiculous patents before this COUNTERSTRIKE. It's not hard to see that while you may not always like Google or what they do, they've never really done anything truly detrimental to their customers or their users (these are usually two different groups, by the way), let alone the industry as a whole. The same cannot be said for the few they've taken an offensive stance with.

Actually I was mocking the fact that all the Apple fanboys use "don't be evil" whenever Google does anything borderline questionable, and Android fanboys (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I've been accused of being) like to use "rectangle with rounded corners" as the ultimate anti-Apple chant.

I was pointing out that they're both stupid.

Yes, Apple's design patent is pretty dumb, and is not the only patent I find they should not have been given, but repeatedly saying "rectangle with rounded corners" is equally inane.

Yes, Google's motto is "don't be evil", but how someone can use that in this case, where Googarola is seeking to ban Apple products, largely in retaliation for Apple lawsuits, to say Google is being evil is just as inane.

Half the first page was fanboy chatter, and both sides are dumb. I was just pointing it out.

I mostly agree, but it IS almost always relevant, because it (the D'889 patent) is pretty much always the first one that Apple brings out in the litigation, and is involved in, I believe, every case they've filed against Android vendors.

Yes, Google's motto is "don't be evil", but how someone can use that in this case, where Googarola is seeking to ban Apple products, largely in retaliation for Apple lawsuits, to say Google is being evil is just as inane.

Motorola opened fire first, in 2007. Just a few weeks after the first iPhone went on sale. But that was nothing new for them. They have a very long history of these kinds of stunts. Dating back to the late 80's. And they are one of the larger reasons that FRAND licensing came into being, since they couldn't be relied on to honor their agreements. But, as we've seen they still don't honor their contracts and agreements with FRAND in place.

From the standards agreement.

Quote:

Motorola represented to the Institute and the 3G Project that it would “grant irrevocable licences under the [intellectual property rights] on terms and conditions which are in accordance with . . . the [Institute’s] [intellectual property rights] Policy.”

Then August 2007.

Quote:

Apple’s original iPhone went on sale in June 2007. Apple’s original iPhone contained an Infineon baseband chipset, which incorporated technology covered by patents that Motorola has declared as essential. Apple purchased the Infineon baseband chipset through a manufacturing agreement with Chi Mei Corporation, which manufactured the Infineon baseband chipset under a licensing agreement with Motorola. On August 4, 2007, Motorola gave Chi Mei a 60-day suspension notice on its licensing agreement.

Then again, in violation of their FRAND obligations and their contract with Qualcomm.

Quote:

On December 16, 2009, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a contract whereby Applewould purchase chipsets from Qualcomm that were compliant with the CDMA2000standard. The chipsets incorporated technology that Qualcomm licensed from Motorola.On January 11, 2011, on the day Apple announced the Verizon iPhone 4, Motorola notifiedQualcomm of its intent to terminate any and all license covenant rights with respect toQualcomm’s business with Apple, effective February 10, 2011.

Yes, Google's motto is "don't be evil", but how someone can use that in this case, where Googarola is seeking to ban Apple products, largely in retaliation for Apple lawsuits, to say Google is being evil is just as inane.

Motorola opened fire first, in 2007. Just a few weeks after the first iPhone went on sale. But that was nothing new for them. They have a very long history of these kinds of stunts. Dating back to the late 80's. And they are one of the larger reasons that FRAND licensing came into being, since they couldn't be relied on to honor their agreements. But, as we've seen they still don't honor their contracts and agreements with FRAND in place.

From the standards agreement.

Quote:

Motorola represented to the Institute and the 3G Project that it would “grant irrevocable licences under the [intellectual property rights] on terms and conditions which are in accordance with . . . the [Institute’s] [intellectual property rights] Policy.”

Then August 2007.

Quote:

Apple’s original iPhone went on sale in June 2007. Apple’s original iPhone contained an Infineon baseband chipset, which incorporated technology covered by patents that Motorola has declared as essential. Apple purchased the Infineon baseband chipset through a manufacturing agreement with Chi Mei Corporation, which manufactured the Infineon baseband chipset under a licensing agreement with Motorola. On August 4, 2007, Motorola gave Chi Mei a 60-day suspension notice on its licensing agreement.

Then again, in violation of their FRAND obligations and their contract with Qualcomm.

Quote:

On December 16, 2009, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a contract whereby Applewould purchase chipsets from Qualcomm that were compliant with the CDMA2000standard. The chipsets incorporated technology that Qualcomm licensed from Motorola.On January 11, 2011, on the day Apple announced the Verizon iPhone 4, Motorola notifiedQualcomm of its intent to terminate any and all license covenant rights with respect toQualcomm’s business with Apple, effective February 10, 2011.

1) Google didn't file any of those suits.

2) This is the first suit filed by Google or a Google-owned subsidiary against Apple.

You're effectively trying to say that actions taken by a company OTHER than Google, YEARS before Google attempted to buy them (let alone before such purchase was made and control finalized), is evidence of Google being evil. You cannot attribute Motorola actions to Google other than this one, as Google had no control or authority over Motorola at those times.

Yes, Google's motto is "don't be evil", but how someone can use that in this case, where Googarola is seeking to ban Apple products, largely in retaliation for Apple lawsuits, to say Google is being evil is just as inane.

Motorola opened fire first, in 2007. Just a few weeks after the first iPhone went on sale. But that was nothing new for them. They have a very long history of these kinds of stunts. Dating back to the late 80's. And they are one of the larger reasons that FRAND licensing came into being, since they couldn't be relied on to honor their agreements. But, as we've seen they still don't honor their contracts and agreements with FRAND in place.

From the standards agreement.

Quote:

Motorola represented to the Institute and the 3G Project that it would “grant irrevocable licences under the [intellectual property rights] on terms and conditions which are in accordance with . . . the [Institute’s] [intellectual property rights] Policy.”

Then August 2007.

Quote:

Apple’s original iPhone went on sale in June 2007. Apple’s original iPhone contained an Infineon baseband chipset, which incorporated technology covered by patents that Motorola has declared as essential. Apple purchased the Infineon baseband chipset through a manufacturing agreement with Chi Mei Corporation, which manufactured the Infineon baseband chipset under a licensing agreement with Motorola. On August 4, 2007, Motorola gave Chi Mei a 60-day suspension notice on its licensing agreement.

Then again, in violation of their FRAND obligations and their contract with Qualcomm.

Quote:

On December 16, 2009, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a contract whereby Applewould purchase chipsets from Qualcomm that were compliant with the CDMA2000standard. The chipsets incorporated technology that Qualcomm licensed from Motorola.On January 11, 2011, on the day Apple announced the Verizon iPhone 4, Motorola notifiedQualcomm of its intent to terminate any and all license covenant rights with respect toQualcomm’s business with Apple, effective February 10, 2011.

1) Google didn't file any of those suits.

2) This is the first suit filed by Google or a Google-owned subsidiary against Apple.

You're effectively trying to say that actions taken by a company OTHER than Google, YEARS before Google attempted to buy them (let alone before such purchase was made and control finalized), is evidence of Google being evil. You cannot attribute Motorola actions to Google other than this one, as Google had no control or authority over Motorola at those times.

Except it is the same pattern of behavior. No difference between pre Google or post Google. Notice they still haven't addressed these previous problems that Motorola started.